http://blog.hemmings.com/index.php/2...the-warehouse/

Pretty impressive

 

it burned down.....

 

Damn that's pretty cool.

 

It is cool, minus the 1.1 million in damage it caused...

 

 

 

"Gone, gone, the damage done."

 

"Well, I hope Neil Young will remember
A Southern man don't need him around anyhow."

(Sweet Home Alabama, Lynrd Skynrd)

 

Come on folks, it's obvious

"It's better to burn out than to fade away..."

 

Interesting. I like the blend of new technology with old design. For a few years I've thought about eventually doing a '67 Mustang with something like a Lexus hybrid.





Terry

 

Another goofy granola crunchy.

Wonder how many carbon emissions the fire caused?

 

How so?






Terry

 

Because he made a hybrid...

Yes we can!

Fail.

“By drawing on entrepreneurial companies’ advanced technology and good old American ingenuity, we intend to transform one of the largest and heaviest gas guzzling vehicles of our generation into a highly energy efficient vehicle, and demonstrate to the American public that we can re-power the American dream by demanding environmentally-friendly vehicles now,” Young said.

 

You may consider it a fail, yet many manufacturers are continuing to explore and develop the technology. Eventually it will become much more cost efficient and commonplace.

A "fail"? In this instance, a "fail" is someone who doesn't realize that alternative energy will be refined and eventually used in mainstream production. Whether it be electrical, diesel, or hybrid, it's examples such as the Lincvolt that allow companies and individuals to develop and refine these technologies.



Terry

 

As long as the government wants to give away our tax dollars on this stuff, it will continue. People who don't see this as a silly giveaway are "Fail" themselves.

Neil Young sure showed off what companies are capable of today!

I'm all for "alternative" fuel vehicles as long as I don't have to pay for their development.

Would you be okay giving Exxon $400 million to build gas stations in America?

 

I don't think it as silly, but I suppose you would consider me a "fail". And I suppose all the others in fields such as medicine to military and everything in between that have been supported by government are "fails" as well.

Are you also implying that we entirely are financially responsible for the development of alternative vehicles by manufacturers? Source?




Terry

 

If no one innovated, there wouldnt be cool things that we have today.

I work in the Oil and gas business and some of the senior guys have mentioned to me that in 10 years, the "business" might not be as easy as it is right now.

I'm glad the Lincvolt team is at least trying to achieve a Frankenstein Hybrid.

 

I agree. Technology moves forward due it's mistakes just as much as it's advances. And it often seems to be both individuals and large companies that share in these advances.

I find it fascinating all the development of alternative fuels and power sources. As a gearhead, I love the sound and feel of a gasoline powered engine, and although I think (and hope) they will be always be around in some capacity, I think future vehicles have the potential to be just as exhilarating.




Terry

 

I'd drive it

 

If you think the U.S. government giving away billions of dollars for these things is a good idea when we're broke then I'd love to see how you balance your checkbook.

The batteries are made by a South Korean company which got $150 million from the U.S. taxpayer. The buyer of the these cars gets $7,500.00 from the U.S. taxpayer out of a fund set up that contains $1.5 billion. The U.S. Department of Energy then gave GM $240 million in grants last summer. Then GM got $14 billion from the U.S. taxpayer to "retool" their plants.

Fisker got $529 million in "loans" from the U.S. taxpayer to build an electric car in Finland (Al Gore is a backer of Fisker).

Tesla got $465 million in "low interest" loans from the U.S. taxpayer... then Daimler invested money in them (getting a free ride from us) and Tesla loses money on every car sold...

I could provide many more examples...

The Chevy Volt was essentially underwritten by taxpayers, as is the Tesla. The Volt and the Tesla lose money on every unit sold for their manufacturers. Please explain how that is a good idea economically?

How about this quote about Obamanomics:

“We can’t make money on the first Volts,” said Troy Clarke, president of GM’s North American operations. “But as we get a chance to change the generations of technology, we’ll lose less and less.”

 

I balance my checkbook quite well, thank you. Recognizing and investing in technologies has been responsible to some degree in that regard.

And you haven't provided examples of anything other than investment in future technologies. Which is basically what I and others have been saying. Again, please differeniate for me the difference between public and private interests having a stake in future R&D in ventures such as military or medicine and alternative automotive fuels and technology. The last quote you copied provided my point quite well incidentally: the chance to change generations of technology. Whatever industry or even country changes and evolves existing technology first is often rewarded because of it. With technological change comes efficiency and eventual profit.



Terry

 

 

The difference is quite simple. Government is a very poor medium to pick "winning" technologies and to allocate limited resources (money). We have our government spending our money to "help" ethanol, hybrid, hydrogen, wind, solar, and wave generators. It is not the role of government to pick winners... that is up to the marketplace, which the government has no understanding of. If you do not understand why this is not the government's job then please say so.

Private companies spend tons of money working on perhaps 100 different drugs and only 2 or 3 might eventually make it to market. With the government, it would be like they are spending tons of money working on 100 different drugs and after 10 years they are still working on 100 different drugs because government is never concerned with making a profit or seeing any progress. That's why the post office and AMTRAK lose money every year.

Countries do not become dominant in anything, private businesses in certain countries become dominant but that is because those business in those countries can turn a profit and be the most efficient. Lower taxation and freer trade is what determines that, not a government handing out tens of billions of dollars to whomever fills out a form and makes some vague promises.

The technologies used in the CD was invented in America by an American, David Gregg, in 1958. Did America become dominant in making CD players? No. Japan did.

 

As you were concerned over the balance of my checkbook, I see you are now concerned with my understanding of government. Again, your concerns are unfounded.

It's interesting that you determine what technology is "winning" and what isn't. I especially find it interesting in that members of your government were in my province not too long to explore Alberta's oil fields. They stated it was their intention to reduce their country's dependence on foreign oil and to continue to explore ways to reduce consumption and explore alternative power sources. These are elected officials, put into place by your populace. It would seem to me that they are indeed responsible for the wants and desires of those who placed them there. And lately there has been a definite push to explore alternative energy and power sources.

Please explain further how it isn't the role of government to encourage growth and support research and development. How government support or encouragement of any kind has never had a positive effect on an industry. Or maybe, to make it easier since you are in automotive sales, how the tax and labour incentives introduced by various levels of government do nothing to help the success of foreign manufacturers. Which brand do you sell again?



Terry

 

Sure no problem!

I am not saying which technologies will be "winners" in the marketplace... might want to re-read what I said. My point is that it is not the job of government to pick and choose winners in the marketplace... that is the job of the marketplace, which works best when government doesn't interfere.

I am not interested in the government deciding for private industry what energy supplies we should be using. If there is a demand by consumers for helium-filled hamster wheels then a private company will develop this as an energy source. I would suggest helium-filled hamster wheels do not power everything is because its not a good investment. Government doesn't care if it's a good investment or not, like Ethanol, so I'm surprised they haven't given $1 billion for some company to develop these.

Regarding our elected officials... if you look at the most recent elections I think you'll find people don't like how they have been represented. Obamacare had a majority of support against it, yet it was signed into law anyway. Obviously this is but one example of our elected officials not carrying out the will of the people.

What did I say earlier (if you read it) about what government can do to encourage private growth and a strong economy? TAXES. REGULATIONS. How is this at odds with Ohio giving Honda tax breaks if they build a factory there and hire 10,000 people? It's not at odds with what I said... it's in agreement.

I work for a Mercedes-Benz dealer. They have hired over 4,000 people for their plants in Alabama and contributed over $1.5 billion to the Alabama economy every year since since 1997. Not a bad deal for Alabama having offered $250-$300 million in tax credits back in 1993, is it? They spent $300 million immediately in Alabama just to get operations up and running.

This is all basic economic/free trade/growth stuff.

 

I did read it. And actually, you've just confirmed with what I've been saying.




Terry

 

A few classic examples of a US Government funded programs that were tremendously successful.

The Pentagon helped usher in a many semi-conductor chip technologies. One example was the VHSIC 1/2 DoD program that helped fund new technology in design and process for CMOS circuits in the early/mid 80's. The DoD was promoting CMOS and although the program didn't yield the results it wanted for the DoD it did allow Intel, IBM, and others to greatly advance technology in CMOS which vastly expanded the majority role CMOS has today in almost all electronics.

Another example is ARPANET which was funded by the DoD through ARPA (now DARPA) to create the world's first packet switched network. Lincoln Labs also worked on it and today you may know it better by it's other name the Internet.

The amount of US funding of aviation technology is also well known. CDMA was orignally a research study by the DoD.

I agree sometimes government getting involved is a bad thing, but other times it has proliferated some great new technology.


Oh the example of AMTRAK is a poor one since that is more due to the large geography of the US than being government owned. Several government led train have been very successful, France's TGV is a classic example.

 

Nice.

 

The SNCF loses money every year. That's a definition of success? AMTRAK runs unprofitable routes because the government says they should. Were they a private company the unprofitable routes would go away. The post office is another great example of government not being able to run something and make a profit.

Relating to semi-conductors and other examples... this is working to refine a technology not picking technological winners as I said like Ethanol, hydrogen, hybrids, solar, wind, wave, etc. Big difference.

 

The internet was picking packet switched networks over circuit switched. There was no packet switched network at all before. The internet is a excellent example of government selecting a technology, this being ARPA at the time along with Lincoln Labs.

VHSIC 1/2 was the selection of CMOS over bi-polar technology for future semiconductor research.

Yes, CMOS was invented in the 60's but was in the early 80's not prominent technology for digital. IBM, TI, Fairchild, Motorola, and others were all heavily based on bipolar.

SNCF losing money, do you have a reference for that. I could not find any?

Amtraks and the Post Offices problems are far beyond a simple sentence that it's a government failure. Some are the government's fault, some are just facts like the large distances of the US, and then there are alot more.

 

SNCF loses money every year on regional transport in France using regular trains and on freight in France.

http://www.webinfrance.com/france-tr...rcent-325.html

Funny how Fed-Ex and UPS do not have the same advantages as the Post Office does with regards to being legally barred from offering 1st class mail to an address yet they turn a profit.

AMTRAK loses money because the government owns it... plain and simple.

 

Nothing in that article states any losses for SNCF
Amtrak is a complicated situation, plain and simple.

Government occasionally does well with tech innovations, other times it's a waste.

 

Really, the article plainly says:

"SNCF loses money every year on regional transport in France using regular trains and on freight in France."

Their press release states:

"Group Net result of -496 M€ as of 30 June 2009"

http://www.sncf.com/resources/en_EN/...sults_2009.pdf

Government can't run businesses well, particularly when they enjoy a monopoly.

 

Key point "In singling out TGV rails this time, the company that owns the tracks in France is looking to tap funds from the SNCF’s only profitable operation. SNCF loses money every year on regional transport in France using regular trains and on freight in France."

So the TGV is making money and the other regional operation is not. Not all segments of a business make a profit.

Looking at their balance sheet SCNF was profitable to 417M Euro for the first half of 2008 but it lost money in 2009.

This was originally about technology fostering by government.

 

The TGV has a monopoloy in France and yet 20% of its lines lose money, possibly as much as 30% by the end of this year. In fact, quite a few lines are under recommendation to be closed but Big Union is going to strike to prevent this so the losses will probably continue.

SNCF also has a monopoly providing rail transport in France and freight, yet they lose money. Huh.

When competition is introduced, as in the Eurotunnel which recently picked German trains over French ones, a nasty diplomatic spat was the result.

My issue is with government spending money to pick technological winners. In the case of the TGV, the effort was simply to make existing trains go faster. This is very different from which "alternative" energy will be powering cars for the next 100 years.

 

If you really think "In the case of the TGV, the effort was simply to make existing trains go faster." then you clearly do not understand the technology in it. It's the equivalent of saying the Concorde was simply to make existing aircraft go faster which was clearly not the case.

 

The TGV is an evolutionary design. They did not go from horse and buggy to space shuttle.

 

You do not know the TGV technology, plain and simple.

 

I lived in France for quite a few years and do just fine on my TGV trivia but thanks for your concern!